The killing that happened in Colorado can never be fully explained to the satisfaction of the relatives of those who died, or who suffered serious injury. No amount of gun control legislation or security, short of a “police state”, would have prevented what happened. The one thing that might have changed the whole picture was just one person, properly trained and carrying a firearm. They might have been able to stop the carnage before it ever got past the first three shots. The problem was that NO ONE is allowed to carry a legal, concealed weapon into those theaters. The shooter knew that all those people sitting in that theater on that night watching that movie were all sitting ducks!
The shooter was vulnerable because of the gas mask that he wore and the cheap, oversized magazine that he carried on his rifle. Super-capacity magazines of low quality have a tendency to jam, especially when you have someone operating them who isn’t familiar with that particular weapon. The shotgun that he carried could do more devastating damage at close range then can a semi auto rifle per shot.
When you put up a sign that says “No Firearms Allowed”, you are really telling those with evil intent that this place is a free fire zone. I’ll bet the people in that movie house would have traded one lone well-trained and armed citizen for all the law enforcement that showed up after the shooting stopped. The trouble with all these politicians calling for stricter gun control is that they are already protected by well-trained people carrying firearms. They don’t have to worry about the crazies of the world.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has bodyguards who are armed and a city that’s awash in illegal guns and murder. But he feels compelled to tell us little people to just give up our guns, watch a movie drinking our 12 soft drinks and cracker jack box-sized popcorn (with no salt of course), and eat carrot sticks instead of candy. And if there is any trouble, don’t worry; the police are only a half hour away!
Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California made a comment on Fox News Sunday in a debate with Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson that was quite telling of her ignorance of what MIGHT have happened if an armed citizen would have been present. She said that there might have been a firefight between the shooter and the citizen, which meant that innocent people might get hurt. I suppose in her mind that just lying there and dying was a better option? Senator Feinstein, this shooter was already spraying the place with gunfire as the injured from the theater next door will attest to. What do you think might have happened if the shooter had decided to stand his ground and law enforcement had to storm the theater, Senator?
I don’t need to know what the shooter’s motive was for his actions. I don’t need to get into his mind (and how would that help anyone understand this guy?) Would it prevent it from happening again? Is the media looking for answers to an unanswerable question or simply trying to satisfy the morbid curiosity of themselves and some of their readers? The good Senator and her Progressive colleagues need to understand that you cannot legislate against evil. You can only allow people to prepare for it.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.